by Byron100 » Mon 08 Sep 2008, 10:19:08
MrBill wrote: $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e probably need 15-25% of our workforce to meet all our basic needs for food, fuel, shelter, etc. The rest out of necessity is either employed in services or in producing luxury products or discretionary spending. The economy expands to include labor. Most of us are simply not necessary to its running. So from a societal point of view it may be better than 75% of the workforce stop working and stop producing, while being supported by the 25% of those that actually produce what it is that we need. At least that would reduce the amount of waste and energy consumed by society as a whole.
Now, that is one of the most intelligent things I've read around here for a long, long time. I've always known that there's too many people and not enough jobs, and that the majority of jobs are just "filler" - not essential for the basics of life.
Know why service-class workers are paid so little? Because we don't
need them. They're there just so we can blow our money on totally useless pursuits, such as drinking that god-awful sludge they serve at Starbucks, or eat cardboard food at chain restaurants, or shop for overpriced trinkets at the mall.
Of course, when the economy falls down, there won't be any "discretionary" spending, so all of those service-class workers will be unemployed, leaving approximately a quarter of the working-age population to carry the load. It's not a pleasant thing to think about, but there's no getting around that. There's simply *not enough work* to keep everyone employed. As it stands now, only about 65% of all adults between 18 and 65 are currently employed, and this figure will get smaller from here on out.
So how to keep the jobless fed and housed? My idea would be implement Huey Long's minimum income plan...everyone gets a share of the nation's GDP whether they work or not. This keeps the food on the table, roof over heads and prevents the total breakdown of society. Those that do have jobs, as actual producers, will be able to keep a portion of what they earn, in addition to the minimum state income, so they'll enjoy a higher standard of living than those who do not have jobs. If those folks don't like the idea of the majority living off the fruits of their labors, then tough sh*t. Which would you rather have, a society like I've just described, or a new Dark Age with burnt-out cities and starving zombies?
Don't know about you guys, but I'm voting for the most sensible option.

Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide...
...and the meek shall inherit the Earth!